Analisis Yuridis terhadap Putusan Hakim yang Menyatakan Tuntutan Penuntut Umum Tidak dapat Diterima dalam Perspektif Due Process of Law
Studi Putusan PN Oelamasi No. 1/Pid.Sus-Anak/2020/PN Olm
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55606/sscj-amik.v4i4.6193Keywords:
Child in Conflict with the Law, Due Process of Law, Inadmissible Indictment, Judicial Reasoning, Juvenile Criminal Justice SystemAbstract
A decision declaring a public prosecutor's indictment inadmissible (niet ontvankelijke verklaard) is an interesting phenomenon in Indonesian criminal justice practice because it is not explicitly regulated as a final judgment under the Criminal Procedure Code. This study aims to analyze the legal reasoning of judges in rendering a decision declaring the prosecutor's indictment inadmissible in Decision of the Oelamasi District Court Number 1/Pid.Sus-Anak/2020/PN Olm and to examine its juridical implications for the juvenile criminal justice system. This research employed a normative legal method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Legal materials were collected through library research consisting of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal sources and were analyzed qualitatively. The findings reveal that the judges' reasoning was based on a fundamental procedural defect during the investigation stage, namely the absence of mandatory assistance from parents or guardians, community counselors, and legal counsel as required under Law Number 11 of 2012 concerning the Juvenile Criminal Justice System. Such violation rendered the investigation process legally defective and consequently affected the validity of the prosecution. The decision emphasizes the importance of implementing the principles of due process of law, child protection, and procedural legality within the juvenile criminal justice system. Therefore, stronger regulations and supervisory mechanisms are required to ensure legal certainty and the protection of children's rights throughout the criminal justice process.
References
Abdi, Z., & Radjab, S. (2021). Analisis putusan hakim tingkat kasasi terhadap kasus Baiq Nuril Maknun. Alauddin Law Development Journal, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.24252/aldev.v3i1.14824
Ali, A. (1993). Menguak tabir hukum: Suatu kajian filosofis dan sosiologis. Citra Aditya Bakti.
Efendi, J., & Rijadi, P. (2022). Metode penelitian hukum normatif dan empiris. Kencana.
Harahap, M. Y. (1993). Pembahasan permasalahan dan penerapan KUHAP. Pustaka Kartini.
Harahap, M. Y. (2000). Pembahasan permasalahan dan penerapan KUHAP: Penyidikan dan penuntutan. Sinar Grafika.
Hiariej, E. O. S. (2012). Teori dan hukum pembuktian. Erlangga.
Huda, N. (2018). Penerapan diversi dalam sistem peradilan pidana anak. Jurnal Penelitian Hukum, 12(2).
Jaya, M. L. M. (2020). Metode penelitian kuantitatif dan kualitatif (Teori, penerapan, dan riset nyata). Quadrant.
Julyano, M., & Sulistyawan, A. Y. (2019). Pemahaman terhadap asas kepastian hukum melalui konstruksi penalaran positivisme hukum. Crepido, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.14710/crepido.1.1.13-22
Marzuki, P. M. (2017). Penelitian hukum (Edisi revisi). Kencana.
Mertokusumo, S. (2014). Penemuan hukum: Sebuah pengantar. Cahaya Atma Pustaka.
Muhammad, R. (2011). Hukum acara pidana kontemporer. Citra Aditya Bakti.
Muhammad, R. (2013). Lembaga pengadilan Indonesia beserta putusan konvensional. UII Press.
Otto, J. M. (2009). Rechtszekerheid in Indonesia. Leiden University Press.
Packer, H. L. (1968). The limits of the criminal sanction. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804780797
Pangaribuan, L. M. P. (2017). Hukum acara pidana: Surat resmi advokat di pengadilan. Papas Sinar Sinanti.
Panggabean, H. P. (2014). Penerapan teori hukum dalam sistem peradilan Indonesia. PT Alumni.
Prasetyo, T. (2015). Kepastian hukum dalam sistem peradilan pidana di Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan, 45(3).
Putro, W. D. (2024). Filsafat hukum: Pergulatan filsafat Barat, filsafat Timur, filsafat Islam, pemikiran hukum Indonesia hingga metajuridika di metaverse (2nd ed.). Kencana.
Ratri, P. D. (2023). Analisis putusan niet ontvankelijke verklaard (Dinyatakan tidak dapat diterima) terhadap perkara tindak pidana penyerobotan tanah (Studi Putusan Nomor: 376/Pid.B/2021/PN Kot) (Tesis magister, Universitas Lampung).
Republik Indonesia. (1981). Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP).
Republik Indonesia. (2009). Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman.
Republik Indonesia. (2012). Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2012 tentang Sistem Peradilan Pidana Anak.
Setia Tunggal, H. (2013). Undang-Undang RI No. 11 Tahun 2012 tentang sistem peradilan pidana anak. Harvarindo.
Siahaan, L. O. (2006). Peran hakim agung dalam penemuan hukum dan penciptaan hukum era reformasi dan transformasi. IKAHI.
Siyoto, S., & Sodik, M. A. (2015). Dasar metodologi penelitian. Literasi Media Publishing.
Utrecht. (1990). Pengantar hukum Indonesia. Ichtiar Baru Van Hoeve.
Zainal Asikin. (2014). Mengenal filsafat hukum. Pustaka Reka Cipta.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Student Scientific Creativity Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
.png){kind=logo}
